Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Do evolutionists silence the critics?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 524150" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p><em>Originally posted by Matthew Many ways. No one is suggesting a conspiracy because one is not needed. Lack of funding, rejection of a paper going through peer-review, and refusal to publish are all ways in which silencing can occur</em>. </p><p></p><p>NIH lists all grants that are submitted.&nbsp; Do you see any grants submitted on ID or creationism?&nbsp; How can they be rejected if they are not submitted?&nbsp; The same applies for peer-reviewed papers. Although Gentry's papers on radiohaloes were published in <em>Science</em>, weren't they?&nbsp; When creation "scientists" were asked in the 1982 trial to produce rejection notices of peer-reviewed papers, they couldn't.</p><p></p><p>Dembski has stated that he doesn't do peer-reviewed work. Why? Because they don't pay <strong>royalties</strong>.&nbsp; He gets royalties from his books, after all.</p><p></p><p><em>It does. Research into continental drift prior to the 1960's, sun-centered solar system, oxygen instead of phlogiston</em>...&nbsp;</p><p></p><p>The first -- continental drift -- is simply untrue.&nbsp;&nbsp;A minority of geologists continued to do research and publish on plate tectonics from the time the theory was first proposed.&nbsp; </p><p></p><p>The second -- sun centered solar system -- is because there is nothing <strong>new</strong> to publish.&nbsp; It is already well-established that the sun is the center of the solar system.&nbsp; Journals are for <strong>new</strong> findings, not continued support of already well-supported findings. That is&nbsp;a reason why transitional series of fossils aren't published; they are no longer new.</p><p></p><p>The last isn't published because the theory of phlogiston has been <strong>falsified.</strong>&nbsp; It is false.&nbsp; Therefore, what is there to publish about it?&nbsp;</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 524150, member: 4882"] [I]Originally posted by Matthew Many ways. No one is suggesting a conspiracy because one is not needed. Lack of funding, rejection of a paper going through peer-review, and refusal to publish are all ways in which silencing can occur[/I]. NIH lists all grants that are submitted. Do you see any grants submitted on ID or creationism? How can they be rejected if they are not submitted? The same applies for peer-reviewed papers. Although Gentry's papers on radiohaloes were published in [I]Science[/I], weren't they? When creation "scientists" were asked in the 1982 trial to produce rejection notices of peer-reviewed papers, they couldn't. Dembski has stated that he doesn't do peer-reviewed work. Why? Because they don't pay [B]royalties[/B]. He gets royalties from his books, after all. [I]It does. Research into continental drift prior to the 1960's, sun-centered solar system, oxygen instead of phlogiston[/I]... The first -- continental drift -- is simply untrue. A minority of geologists continued to do research and publish on plate tectonics from the time the theory was first proposed. The second -- sun centered solar system -- is because there is nothing [B]new[/B] to publish. It is already well-established that the sun is the center of the solar system. Journals are for [B]new[/B] findings, not continued support of already well-supported findings. That is a reason why transitional series of fossils aren't published; they are no longer new. The last isn't published because the theory of phlogiston has been [B]falsified.[/B] It is false. Therefore, what is there to publish about it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Do evolutionists silence the critics?
Top
Bottom